Source code of ASP.NET

https://github.com/aspnet

by wfjackson • 12 years ago

291 99 12 years ago

github.com

moskie• 12 years ago

The URL of that link is a pretty surprising thing, in and of itself.

georgemcbay• 12 years ago

Parts of Microsoft have been using github for quite a while now:

https://github.com/msopentech https://github.com/Azure

The Azure SDK has been there since 2012.

I agree that even now it still seems kind of odd when Microsoft embraces open source technologies, and the company is very big so their support tends to be oddly lumpy (generally better among the groups working on products that are directly related to networking like ASP.NET, Azure, etc) but they've been on this path for quite a while now.

steveklabnik• 12 years ago

Reactive extensions too: https://github.com/Reactive-Extensions

lucidquiet5• 12 years ago

Too little, too late (imo). I'll think about it again once they have visual studio and all the good things running on *.nix.

It's too much of a pain to get anything to work with a .net project, and then deploy on anything other than IIS.

hudo• 12 years ago

Too little? Biggest change for ASP.NET from release of ASP.NET! "Too much of pain" was the first (and last) thing I said when trying to configure ruby on ubuntu. Or tried to download some app and run it.

gretful• 12 years ago

same thing I said when trying to convert to .Net. Ruby on Ubuntu? easy peasy.

lucidquiet5• 12 years ago

I guess all those thousands of Rails apps running on Ubuntu had some kind of magic or secret knowledge to get that working. Going open source and posting some libs on Github is 'Huge'? That's kind of funny considering how much is out there, top notch, and did it way before MS did, and yet, it wasn't "huge" for them.

mkaziz• 12 years ago

I think Hudo's point is that experience with technologies is subjective. I loathe Windows after having been comfortable in terminal, and I loathe Eclipse after having been comfortable in VS.

justathrow2k2• 12 years ago

This just in, people who aren't impressed by the .NET stack still aren't and continue to not use it.

jbigelow76• 12 years ago

I don't think some of them even use their preferred development stacks, they are too busy telling you how they don't use .NET.

bigdubs• 12 years ago

ASP.net vNext was specifically about this.

And you don't need VS to do .net development; check out monodevelop or xamarin studio (they're the same basic thing)

camus2• 12 years ago

it's not even about visual studio.

It's about the fact that the whole .net framework is not opensource,thus forcing you to run windows server anyway.

UK-AL• 12 years ago

They've committed to working with mono to getting working well on there.

brainling2• 12 years ago

This entire version of ASP.NET is specifically about modularizing the stack and breaking it's dependence on IIS so it will work well with Mono + Apache and Nginx. That's quite literally why this version is being written, as aside from MVC, ASP.NET as an IIS interface technology has been feature complete for years and wasn't in line for any major changes.

weego• 12 years ago

I don't understand the thinking behind phrases like "too little, too late" about a company whose tooling will likely span the entire careers of a number of generations of developers.

duiker101• 12 years ago

because some people just like to complain and hate.

dev3605• 12 years ago

I say that a lot and I feel like .NET is loosing relevance. Embracing open source and making Linux a first-class citizen in the eco system would be the only way for .NET to increase adoption or stay technologically relevant, and unfortunately its happening too slow.

brainling2• 12 years ago

Visual Studio a) will never run on Unix, and b) is not required to do .NET development.

I know people who do their .NET work in Sublime Text with a nant build chain. It's not my preferred method, but it works great for them. Hell, I know a guy that uses ASP.NET to host an Angular app, and to unify his build system, he has Grunt pick up the heavy lifting of running his MSBuild files whenever he does the pre-deploy steps for his JavaScript.

If you think you need Visual Studio to do .NET development, it's because you fundamentally don't understand the technologies at play and just wanted to say something provocative and witty.

lucidquiet5• 12 years ago

The only reason I bring up Visual Studio is because most people don't even see the world out side of that IDE. "If it's not MS and it's not possible inside of Visual Studio it doesn't exist." That's how a whole lot of .NET developers, and .NET houses work -- and so that leads to my comment on VS.

eropple• 12 years ago

If you think you need Visual Studio to do .NET development, it's because you fundamentally don't understand the technologies at play and just wanted to say something provocative and witty.

On the off chance you're not just being knee-jerk and defensive because Something You Like is under fire--people think that VS is necessary because life is way too short to spend building something half as good as the other options in twice the time. I mean, could write Scala in TextMate, too, if I had the jones for it. But I could also not, and use IntelliJ, because I value having tools that are able to improve my productivity. (And decrease my frustration; by sticking with the JVM I have the benefit of not have to rely on Mono, whose GC, from experience, I do not trust in long-running processes; after spending a year owning a trivial Mono ASP.NET app that presented no end of troubles, I am very happy not needing to have a watchdog ready to kick it over when it undergoes its daily spaz-out.)

Xamarin Studio is not an acceptable product, either. I've been trying to use it for a couple weeks now and about ready to pitch a computer out a window--the basic functions of editing code are magnificently broken and have been for a long time. Random phantom line breaks in the editor that aren't in the code file, bad auto-indenting, phantom error highlighting, no partial-build error solving--and Visual Studio doesn't work on OS X. (To say nothing of the "you have to restart because XS forgot how to talk to xbuild" bugs...) That leaves the shitty bodges you well-actually'd your way into or not doing .NET at all. The latter makes a lot more sense for a lot more people.

I really enjoy C# and F# and I'd love to use .NET more if the frustrations in using it on not-Windows were not of such a magnitude. I am critical because it should be better and isn't. (Worse, Xamarin removed most reasons to contribute to the Mono ecosystem a while ago by making so much of the useful bits commercial, which is understandable--gotta eat--but also unfortunate.)

romanovcode• 12 years ago

And what is impressive? Still rocking that LAMP stack, mate?

lucidquiet5• 12 years ago

Nope, I'm not a fan of Php either actually. Mostly I rock the Java, Node, Clojure, Scala, *nix (mac), C++11 on Ubuntu and Mac with JS+Angular. I guess that's the stack mate.

breischl• 12 years ago

I believe one of the big changes in ASP.NET vNext is the ability to deploy outside of IIS.

Other types of projects, notably WebAPI, have been able to easily deploy outside of IIS for years. I actually just converted two WebAPI projects to self-hosting. It took about a day, which is not bad considering that includes time to learn what I was doing and reworking an existing deployment process.

bdcravens• 12 years ago

There's definitely some places where this may be true, but there's a lot of locations and industries where .NET is firmly planted and not going anywhere anytime soon. For instance, Houston and the oil industry here (not just the big companies like Exxon, but the massive ecosystem surrounding petroleum). It may not be about winning new industries, but gaining the benefits of open source where they already are.

nivla• 12 years ago

When company X that the hivemind dislikes makes it to the news, they are often criticized with not open sourcing their product Y. When they finally open source it, they are met with "Too late!". Sometimes there is no winning with people who have already made up their mind.

Too little

Really? Its MS, their core products and the open source we are talking about. Heck they even open sourced it under a liberal license.

ellisike• 12 years ago

Scott Guthrie is amazing. He's behind all the open source projects. Some of them are even taking pull requests. Entity Framework, MVC, ASP.NET, etc are all popular and open source.

mrspeaker• 12 years ago

Yep - he's the guy that got me into .NET mvc and alt.net... which turned out to be a gateway drug to Ruby on Rails then Scala. (Genuinely) Thanks Scott!

weavie• 12 years ago

So because of .Net MVC you're now programming on the JVM?

d0ugie• 12 years ago

For those curious, Microsoft went with the Apache 2 license: http://www.asp.net/open-source

badman_ting• 12 years ago

Oh, whoever did this is gonna be in big trouble. Heads are gonna roll.

…Hmm? What do you mean "they meant to do that"?

githulhu2• 12 years ago

Not all of ASP.NET though...notably absent: Web Forms.

gagege2• 12 years ago

Yeah, I noticed that too. It would seem that my co-worker who thinks MVC is a fad is at odds with MS themselves.

chiph• 12 years ago

ASP.NET MVC is no longer a fad - a lot of the job openings I'm seeing are asking for it.

eftpotrm• 12 years ago

Trust me; that's a good thing. Nasty, deeply misguided platform - whoever came up with the idea of PostBack and trying to make the web look like VB6 is definitely not on my Christmas card list. Ties you in knots trying to make the web something it fundamentally isn't.

I'll be quiet now, and get back to working on my MVC code. The day when I can finally stop having to work on WebForms code too will be a happy one :-)

githulhu2• 12 years ago

You can't fault it for what it tried to be, though - a plug-and-play, drag-and-drop toolset designed to make web development accessible to savvy end-users and inexperienced developers, at least for what consitutes perhaps 80% of most businesses' needs - simple CRUD apps.

I think there's a lot of value in that, and for as much frustration as maintaining Web Forms apps has caused me (and will continue to cause me) I think it would be neat if they open-sourced it...what's to be lost if the alternative is to just let it rot into obscurity? I would totally fork the repo.

graycat2• 12 years ago

Not a rhetorical question: What's so wrong with Web Forms?

Postback? That's really part of HTTP. What the browsers send back to the server is as specified by HTTP, not Microsoft or Web Forms.

Viewstate? Okay, it's a bit of a tricky thing, but really can mostly ignore it. Else it provides a somewhat useful service.

Controls? Yes, for each HTML 'control', there is an ASP.NET class so to send the HTML for the control to the user, get an instance of the class corresponding to the control, assign values to the properties, attach the instance to a big tree that gets walked by the code in one of the ASP.NET 'events', maybe PAGE_PRERENDER, and move along. Why is this so bad?

Web Forms is my first and so far only way I've written Web pages. Explain what is wrong with Web Forms and what is much better and why?

dev3605• 12 years ago

Is this admission that codeplex is dead?

kayone• 12 years ago

I don't think so, the ASP.NET team has been releasing code to github for while. same as azure, most of their SDK was released to github,

I don't think there is a mandate for all MS project to be on codeplex which is somewhat surprising.

alelefant• 12 years ago

At long last I can avoid codeplex for browsing the aspnet source!

skrebbel3• 12 years ago

Folks, not much of this is new. Both Entity Framework and ASP.NET MVC were already open source for quite some time [0][1]. All the other repos are nearly empty.

The only real news here is that, indeed, ASP.NET vNext is going to be developed in the open, or at least to some extent. But right now, not a lot of code seems to be released that wasn't already out there (although I did not go through all the repos).

I don't think you should expect to find many current/legacy parts of ASP.NET that aren't open yet: this seems to be mostly for new stuff.

Finally, don't forget that "ASP.NET" doesn't seem to mean a lot (anymore): it's basically Microsoft actively shipping the org chart. Anything that's web related and from MS appears to get tacked "ASP.NET" on front of it. Cause really, what does ASP.NET MVC, basically a pretty uninspired Rails port to C# (and just an open source library like any other), have to do with "active server pages"?

[0] https://aspnet.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=MVC [1] https://entityframework.codeplex.com/

Jaecen• 12 years ago

"ASP.NET" is the name of Microsoft's .NET web platform. To answer your rhetorical question, ASP.NET MVC is an MVC framework for Microsoft's .NET web platform. "Microsoft MVC" would not be clearly constrained to web development.

skrebbel3• 12 years ago

"Microsoft's .NET web platform"

What does that even mean? In this case, a bunch of libraries and a protocol for dispatching HTTP requests to .NET code.

If I use Mono's XSP server, and use it to host a ServiceStack backend, am I using "the ASP.NET platform"? It's 100% non-Microsoft open source. Am I using ASP.net when I host the same backend on IIS instead? Or when I host ASP.NET MVC (which is just a library) on Mono/XSP?

jasallen• 12 years ago

ASP.NET MVC shares a ton of the common infrastructure with ASP.NET webforms. It's true that when there was only webforms, there was no need to distinguish and it was all called "ASP.NET". However, MVC and webforms are now two different patterns one can use to structure applications that run on the large, extensive and shared "ASP.NET" infrastructure.

bunderbunder3• 12 years ago

As are ASP.NET Web API, and several non-Microsoft projects such as Fubu MVC, NancyFx, or MonoRail.

That said, can't blame anyone for once again being confused by Microsoft's ultra-confusing "give everything the same name" approach to branding.

CmonDev• 12 years ago

"pretty uninspired Rails port to C#" - but at least it lets you switch between dynamic and static typing.

chanced• 12 years ago

"Uninspired rails port" is a far cry from accurate. I've worked with both rails and asp.net mvc. I started with rails in the 1.x days but also had clients that used .net. I despised web forms for a variety of reasons so I jumped on the mvc bandwagon as soon as the fist community preview was released.

Hack, Connery, Hanselman, & Guthrie openly acknowledge that rails was a source of inspiration in their book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470384611?ie=UTF8&tag=scob... but so was Spring, among others. Above all, I think the .net mvc framework was trying to capture the fasted-paced, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants essence of the rails way more than anything else. In doing so, they unearthed a lot of awesome concepts previously unknown to most .net developers like domain-driven design, tdd/bdd, dependency injection, scaffolding; old hats to Java and ruby guys.

The mvc .net team did an amazing job of breaking stride with the asp.net mentality of letting the framework do as much as possible. Yet .net was still very much confined by it's own structure, forcing the mvc framework to remain rigid. They opted for configuration over convention which, in my opinion, was by far the biggest differentiator in rails to the mvc frameworks that preceded it.

bunderbunder3• 12 years ago

They opted for configuration over convention. . .

I believe you meant "convention over configuration", right?

skrebbel3• 12 years ago

They also filled it up to the edge with Ruby-like magic all over the place.

ASP.NET MVC is the only place I've ever seen in mainstream compiled languages where the code can break in untraceable ways if you change the name of a method parameter (f.ex. for controller actions). Or where models suddenly don't get data because you forget to add "{get; set;}" to the code somewhere. Absolutely no way to find out why it went wrong. The data just isn't there.

Sure, you can learn this and then not make the mistake again, but the reason I don't use Ruby or Python much anymore is because I've had with with having to spend a full day going through a framework's source code to find out why my bug is a bug. In an ecosystem and language like C#, you expect things to either work or to get a pretty OK error message, preferably at compile time. The more magic, the more time I waste tracing bugs.

What's the point of using a compiled language if half your code is a dynamic viewbag of string keys and liberal JSON parsers that just ignore fields it doesn't expect or can't fill?

It's just Ruby, but then in Visual Studio.

daigoba662• 12 years ago

One should note that this is the "new" ASP.NET. The old version, the one explicitly tied to IIS, is not and will probably never be open source software.

They're building a new stack from the ground up. Which is the only way, really, to make it "cross platform".

soundoflight• 12 years ago

The old one was open sourced a couple months (years?) back and is on CodePlex. http://aspnetwebstack.codeplex.com/

daigoba662• 12 years ago

Not quite: that's "ASP.NET MVC", the razor view engine, "web pages", and some other libraries like Entity Framework and SignalR. Technically these are just libraries built on the closed-source ASP.NET stack, colloquially known as System.Web, which is essentially IIS.

WoodenChair• 12 years ago

Is this snippet of code bad? I was just randomly browsing https://github.com/aspnet/KRuntime/blob/dev/src/Microsoft.Fr...

        private bool IsDifferent(ConfigurationsMessage local, ConfigurationsMessage remote)
        {
            return true;
        }

        private bool IsDifferent(ReferencesMessage local, ReferencesMessage remote)
        {
            return true;
        }

        private bool IsDifferent(DiagnosticsMessage local, DiagnosticsMessage remote)
        {
            return true;
        }

        private bool IsDifferent(SourcesMessage local, SourcesMessage remote)
        {
            return true;
        }

tekknolagi• 12 years ago

lolwat

matthewarkin• 12 years ago

thats why its called vNext, not vCurrent, still a work in progress

davidfowl• 12 years ago

I should have put a TODO in there :)

pmelendez4• 12 years ago

It happens in the best families... :)

politician• 12 years ago

Honestly? It looks like an API that's suffering from lack of an interface.

malkia• 12 years ago

Possibly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_dispatch ?

sz4kerto• 12 years ago

        public struct Nada
        {
        }

Probably work in progress

turingbook• 12 years ago

Some clarification: This seems to be only for demos and samples, not really the home of source code to cooperate on.

“The Home repository is the starting point for people to learn about ASP.NET vNext, it contains samples and documentation to help folks get started and learn more about what we are doing.” [0]

“The GitHub issue list is for bugs, not discussions. If you have a question or want to start a discussion you have several options:

- Post a question on StackOverflow - Start a discussion in our ASP.NET vNext forum or JabbR chat room [1]

ASP.NET vNext includes updated versions of MVC, Web API, Web Pages, SignalR and EF... Can run on Mono, on Mac and Linux. [2]

MVC, Web API, and Web Pages will be merged into one framework, called MVC 6. MVC 6 has no dependency on System.Web. [3]

[0] https://github.com/aspnet/Home

[1] https://github.com/aspnet/Home/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md

[2] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2014/05/12/the-next-g...

[3] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/webdev/archive/2014/05/13/asp-net-vn...

V-23• 12 years ago

ICanHasViewContext :) (Mvc / src / Microsoft.AspNet.Mvc.Core / Rendering / ICanHasViewContext.cs)

MrRed• 12 years ago

But why are they looking if their code runs on Mono [1] ?

[1] https://github.com/aspnet/FileSystem/blob/dev/src/Microsoft....

getsaf• 12 years ago

http://www.hanselman.com/blog/IntroducingASPNETVNext.aspx "... Oh, and by the way

ASP.NET vNext (and Rosyln) runs on Mono, on both Mac and Linux today. While Mono isn't a project from Microsoft, we'll collaborate with the Mono team, plus Mono will be added to our test matrix. It's our aspiration that it 'just work.'"

Thanks for pointing that out though, I learned something new today! http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd642331(v=vs.110).a...

Source code of ASP.NET

Related Stories